BEFORE: I'm getting very close now to the point where I'm going to dive into the Academy screeners of films that were released in 2017, and also start working in theatrical releases from 2018. But still, there's something about 2016, it seems it was a banner year for movies all around - if not in terms of quality, then at least in terms of quantity. I've kept track of the Top 250 films (according to IMDB) for every year since 2009, and usually I'll end up watching about 89-90 of those. To date I've watched 100 films with 2016 release dates, and I still have another 21 or 22 on the watchlist. More are popping up on cable now, so there doesn't seem to be an end in sight to the films of 2016.
Now, a couple of possible reasons for this - one is that it's just time for them to finally make their way to premium cable, another is that I recall going out to the movies a LOT during 2016, maybe 10 or 11 times. But it's also the year that Netflix really changed the game and started streaming to the masses, and that's got to play a part. I didn't get on board until the middle of last year, but naturally the movies that were there for me to see at the time ("Sing", "Zootopia", "The Jungle Book", etc.) had all come out during 2016. So there's that. More ways to watch movies equals more choices, so more films from that year ending up in my countdown is to be expected.
(IMDB used to have this great feature where I could see all of the films on my list on a bar graph, sorted by year, and that made it a lot easier to identify years that spiked on the graph, but they seem to have discontinued this little applet. Now I have to count the films myself...)
Unfortunately I came on board just a bit too late, and now it seems that films I spotted on Netflix are starting to disappear. Case in point, tonight's film. It was on Netflix when I did a massive search through their playlist in February, so I made it part of my chain. But when I checked for it last week, it was gone. I thought that most films were on Netflix for 2-year periods, but this one only lasted there 18 months. I can't change my chain now, I'm programmed through July 4, and skipping this film would have meant re-working everything. (With luck, I could have found a way back to the chain, but in this case I couldn't.) So I had to pony up $5 tonight to watch this on iTunes, and that also means I don't have a permanent copy, so I'll have to add it to the list of films to record on the DVR if cable ever gets around to showing them.
But, all things considered, I get my Netflix for free (my wife's account) and I get to watch Academy screeners for free (my bosses are both members) so if I have to pay $5 every once in a while to keep the chain going, it's not such a bad deal.
Ewan McGregor carries over from "T2 Trainspotting".
THE PLOT: A woman asks her ex-lover for help in order to save her outlaw husband from a gang out to kill him.
AFTER: Despite no longer being on Netflix, and despite underperforming at the box office (making $1.5 million in the U.S. against a $25 million budget, ouch) this film FEELS like it should have some potential, especially with THREE stars made famous by the "Star Wars" prequels. (Of those three, it's weird that Joel Edgerton, who played the young version of Luke's Uncle Owen, currently has the hottest career going.) And what is "Star Wars" but a Western film set in space? So naturally you'd think they'd do well when put together in a real Western.
But here comes my nemesis, the non-linear narrative. In pure comic-book / contemporary cinema (post-Pulp Fiction) fashion, the story starts in the middle, in the most enigmatic moment - a man rides on a horse to his home in a canyon, where his wife and daughter are waiting. Only when he gets close to the house and falls off his horse do we realize that he's been shot several times, and barely made it home alive.
Before long we learn a few details about their situation, and after pulling most of the bullets from the man's body, she rides off to seek help from a gunslinger, someone she clearly has a history with, and his answer is, well, not constructive. From there the film flashes back to seven years previous, and then five years previous, and gradually we learn about these people, how they got to be here, and what the true nature of the relationships are.
I've railed against this type of storytelling again and again for its inherent enigmatic, confusing nature, and the fact that it's usually a crutch of a technique that (supposedly) helps turn an otherwise non-interesting narrative into something that at least will qualify as "artsy". Maybe not "artsy-fartsy", but at least it looks like someone's making an attempt to be different. Problem is, nearly everyone's doing it these days, so it doesn't help a film stand out as much as it used to. "Memento" made a big splash with it, and it's been a long slow slog downhill from there.
But I'm prepared to make a rare exception tonight, because this is the one reason I'll allow this editing format to exist: the gradual release of information to the audience, which, over time, then changes our perception of the events first presented to us. Tarantino, perhaps the person most famous for keeping this technique alive, even used it in "The Hateful Eight", to great effect. Hey, let's go back for just a minute and show everyone what happened yesterday in this exact same location, because if you see that, it may change your mind about whether the people snowed in at the cabin really are who they say they are. And it should lead to a feeling of, "Whoa, wait a minute, this changes everything!" assuming that it's done right.
I think this film is working largely among the same lines, because we're presented with what seems to be the remnants of a standard love triangle. This fickle woman left one man to take up with another, and now that she needs the help of the first man, he doesn't want to help her. Simple enough, but then the flashbacks come along and slowly reveal the real story, and thankfully, that changes everything. Did she leave him? Did he leave her? Did something else happen to split these two lovers apart? Obviously their situation in the present is now completely different than it once was, are these just two good people who could never quite get on to the same page, relationship-wise?
It turns out that this whole town in New Mexico seems to be built on constantly shifting moral sands. Every male character seems to have his image on a "Wanted" poster for one reason or another. If that's the case, who can we trust? Who is good and who is evil, or do those terms even apply out in the Old West? And what does it say about people who feel they have to live in a tiny house in a huge canyon, one that can only be approached from one possible angle? Clearly these people have been expecting some form of trouble, even if it's been a long time coming.
NP: Jane shoots a man who's hassling her with a pistol. Then later, when Dan has her shooting targets with a pistol, she seems to have no talent. Then she picks up a shotgun and blows off an ax handle from a fair distance, claiming that she knows how to hunt, therefore she can use a shotgun. So, is she a good shot or not? The film can't seem to make up its mind.
NP #2: Similarly, she rides over to the house of her ex-lover to ask for help in defending her home. Later her husband says, "I thought you told me he was dead..." Her reply is, "I thought that he was..." OK, but you RODE OVER TO HIS HOUSE, so clearly this is not true. To be fair, this does get partially explained by the aforementioned gradual release of information about the characters' back-stories. Or does it? Some things still seem unclear or contradictory.
Also starring Natalie Portman (last seen in "I'm Still Here"), Joel Edgerton (last seen in "Loving"), Noah Emmerich (last seen in "Little Children"), Boyd Holbrook (last seen in "Out of the Furnace"), Rodrigo Santoro (last seen as Jesus in "Ben-Hur"), Sam Quinn, James Burnett, Nash Egerton (last seen in "The Gift"), Alex Manette (last seen in "The Butler"), Piper Sheets, Maisie McMaster.
RATING: 6 out of 10 mason jars
No comments:
Post a Comment